Why must Mary be "Immaculate"?

[AndyP2010]

Thank you.
I understand it’s tradition, I guess I need to read some of the Fathers to get a better grasp of where they’re coming from.

I think it is incorrect to say that Jesus mother must be without sin. It would be better to say that it is fitting. For example a jeweler is making a ring. He has a flawless stone that has the perfect cut and color. He can choose if he will to set it in iron, steel, coper, silver or gold. No setting will diminish the perfection of the stone. It is fitting though that he use gold. Just so with Mary. The mother of Jesus could have been any women and it would not diminish Jesus at all. It is fitting that she be sinless. Remember that Jesus as God made His own mother.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I’m no theologian but I believe Mary was sinless because Christ received his humanity from her. As for her being sinless after Christ’s birth I would only assume she remained sinless because she was full of grace and therefore completely conformed to the will of God and her Divine Son, Christ. I’m sure Mary suffered more than any of us will ever suffer to attain the level of perfection God willed for her to have, especially since she was to be our spiritual Mother.

O Mother Most Sorrowful, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

 

[Anthony_V]

Why must Mary be without sin?
I’ve seen arguments that have to do with Christ cannot be in same body as sin or something like that. But we have the full divinity in us every Sunday so I don’t see need for her sinlessness.

God’s seat in the OT was upon the Ark of the Covenant.
God’s seat in the NT was in Mary.

Look at the materials the ark was made of (from Exodus 25):

10 Frame an ark of setim wood, the length whereof shall be of two cubits and a half: the breadth, a cubit and a half: the height, likewise, a cubit and a half.

11 And thou shalt overlay it with the purest gold within and without: and over it thou shalt make a golden crown round about:

12 And four golden rings, which thou shall put at the four corners of the ark: let two rings be on the one side, and two on the other.

13 Thou shalt make bars also of setim wood, and shalt overlay them with gold.

14 And thou shalt put them in through the rings that are in the sides of the ark, that it may be carried on them.

15 And they shall be always in the rings, neither shall they at any time be drawn out of them.

16 And thou shalt put in the ark the testimony which I will give thee.

17 Thou shalt make also a propitiatory of the purest gold: the length thereof shall be two cubits and a half, and the breadth a cubit and a half.

18 Thou shalt make also two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle.

19 Let one cherub be on the one side, and the other on the other.

20 Let them cover both sides of the propitiatory, spreading their wings, and covering the oracle, and let them look one towards the other, their faces being turned towards the propitiatory wherewith the ark is to be covered.

21 In which thou shalt put the testimony that I will give thee.

22 Thence will I give orders, and will speak to thee over the propitiatory, and from the midst of the two cherubims, which shall be upon the ark of the testimony, all things which I will command the children of Israel by thee.

“Setim wood” – more commonly known as the Acacia tree, means “incorruptible wood” here. [CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Acacia]](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01079a.htm])

The length:width ratio is almost exactly the Golden ratio (1.67 instead of 1.62)

And of course there are other obvious things that don’t need too much explanation. That’s just my speculation on the matter. I find it to be quite interesting how the two are paralleled.

 

[Benadam]

If by the word ‘must’ you mean ‘necessary’, necessity is a subjective term. If you are asking for the reason it was necessary there isn’t one. If you are asking why the Immaculate Conception is good and fitting for man to return to God there are countless reasons.

Mary’s sinlessnes is not necessary. Mary’s sinlessness was somewhat of a requirement. Not that Jesus would have inherited sin from the womb but His experience of human love would have lacked perfection. He would have been reduced to teaching entirely without the experience of perfect human love. How could He have taught only a good tree can produce good fruit if Mary had sin? Because God chose to conform to the order He established in the beginning Mary is Immaculate

 

[Vico]

From the 1854 Ineffabilis Deus, gives the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, that the Theotokos is such before all ages*:*

“From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world.”

“And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent.”

… “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed”[13] – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.[14]

1. Gn 3:15.
2. Quo circa sicut Christus Dei hominumque mediator, humana assumpta natura, delens quod adversus nos erat chirographum decretia, illud cruci triumphator affixit; sic Sanctissima Virgo, Arctissimo et indissolubili vinculo cum eo conjuncta, una cum illo et per illum, sempiternas contra venenosum serpentem inimicitias exercens, ac de ipso plenissime triumphans, illus caput immaculato pede contrivit.

 

[Ubenedictus]

I guess the theologians say something like 'it was fiting for God to do it and he did it. But if u are asking why she is (must be) immaculate i think that answer is Gen 3:15 God didn’t just put enemity btw satan and christ He also put enemity btw mary and satan if Jesus had a complete victory mary certianly complete-ly co-conquered. God made them pairs i cannot see how Jesus completely conquered sin and mary was contaminated. If one of them did sin then it easy to prove that both sinned but if we have a sinless Christ who is God, the new adam then his merit covers the new eve mary his mother that way Gen 3:15 is fulfilled an enemity of two pair ‘one’ conquered both conquered ‘one’ lost both lost, ‘one’ won and ‘one’ lost then its not a complete victory. A pair enemity makes a pair victory.
Peace

 

[StrawberryJam]

I guess the theologians say something like 'it was fiting for God to do it and he did it. But if u are asking why she is (must be) immaculate i think that answer is Gen 3:15 God didn’t just put enemity btw satan and christ He also put enemity btw mary and satan if Jesus had a complete victory mary certianly complete-ly co-conquered. **God made them pairs **i cannot see how Jesus completely conquered sin and mary was contaminated. If one of them did sin then it easy to prove that both sinned but if we have a sinless Christ who is God, the new adam then his merit covers the new eve mary his mother that way Gen 3:15 is fulfilled an enemity of two pair ‘one’ conquered both conquered ‘one’ lost both lost, ‘one’ won and ‘one’ lost then its not a complete victory. A pair enemity makes a pair victory.
Peace

I’ve never heard this before. Are there any citations I can look at?

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Why must Mary be without sin?
I’ve seen arguments that have to do with Christ cannot be in same body as sin or something like that. But we have the full divinity in us every Sunday so I don’t see need for her sinlessness.

The answer to your question is in the link of the video below.

youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

 

[mardukm]

Why must Mary be without sin?
I’ve seen arguments that have to do with Christ cannot be in same body as sin or something like that. But we have the full divinity in us every Sunday so I don’t see need for her sinlessness.

My personal belief:

Mary MUST be Immaculate in fulfillment of two biblical prophecies:
(1) “I will put emnity between you and the woman;”
(2) “I will make for myself a vessel not made of hands.” (NOTE: this phrase does not mean that humanity is not involved in the making, but that the vessel is holy beyond imagining).

However, this does NOT mean that Mary COULD NOT sin. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both teach that human holiness is a matter of cooperation between God’s Grace and man’s free will. So just as much as God intended for Mary to be holy, Mary herself CHOSE to be holy and live according to the will of God.

Also, though the necessity of Mary’s Immaculateness is directly related to her divine maternity of Christ, this Immaculateness was not necessary for Christ’s flesh to be holy. Even if Mary was not holy, sin could not have touched the Lord Who is God. Rather, it was necessary for Mary to be immaculate because otherwise, she would have been obliterated by the fullness of divinity resting upon her (and then, no Incarnation). So Mary did not need to be holy so she could pass on holiness to Christ; rather she needed to be holy to meet the ontological demands of Him Who is Holiness personified.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m no theologian but I believe Mary was sinless because Christ received his humanity from her.

I posed this question in another thread but it was left unanswered, so perhaps people here can chime in.

My understanding of Theosis (and I admit I’m still learning, so please be charitable in your corrections I’m eagerly awaiting them) is that humanity’s nature was damaged by The Fall. Christ, being God and perfect, put took on flesh to repair humanity’s nature and perfect it, that is why our goal is Theosis, to live in the life of God and obtain His perfection. So would it matter if the humanity Jesus received was flawed? He would have perfected it anyway. Jesus can never be stained by sin for He is the light and darkness is vanquished by light.

Does this make sense? Is this correct?

 

[Vico]

I posed this question in another thread but it was left unanswered, so perhaps people here can chime in.

My understanding of Theosis (and I admit I’m still learning, so please be charitable in your corrections I’m eagerly awaiting them) is that humanity’s nature was damaged by The Fall. Christ, being God and perfect, put took on flesh to repair humanity’s nature and perfect it, that is why our goal is Theosis, to live in the life of God and obtain His perfection. So would it matter if the humanity Jesus received was flawed? He would have perfected it anyway. Jesus can never be stained by sin for He is the light and darkness is vanquished by light.

Does this make sense? Is this correct?

Q. “So would it matter if the humanity Jesus received was flawed?”

Yes. The humanity of the Messiah is a discontinuity with mankind because Christ’s humanness was originated supernaturally in a virgin conception and Christ’s humanness was sinless. If Christ had a fallen nature he would be fallen. No, rather he is in his humaness like Adam and Eve before the fall. We are created in the image and likeness of Christ, but fallen.

“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”
– Saint John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6.

See especially:
1 Peter 1 :19
Hebrews 7:26
Ephesians 2:3

The Catholic Church teaches the incomprehensible mystery of “the transmission of original sin”.

**CCC **404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Q. “So would it matter if the humanity Jesus received was flawed?”

Yes. The humanity of the Messiah is a discontinuity with mankind because Christ’s humanness was originated supernaturally in a virgin conception and Christ’s humanness was sinless. If Christ had a fallen nature he would be fallen. No, rather he is in his humaness like Adam and Eve before the fall. We are created in the image and likeness of Christ, but fallen.

“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”
– Saint John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6.

See especially:
1 Peter 1 :19
Hebrews 7:26
Ephesians 2:3

The Catholic Church teaches the incomprehensible mystery of “the transmission of original sin”.

**CCC **404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

I’m not saying that Christ is flawed. I’m saying that Christ took was is defective and perfected it as soon as he put it on (humanity). Does that make sense? I’m looking this at the perspective of the teaching that a sinful priest can still make Sacraments because God, who works through the priest, cannot be defiled by the priest’s sins. Thus if Christ were to take on flesh that is not perfect, the moment it is incorporated into His being it is instantly perfected. Is this thought completely incompatible with what you have said?

 

[Vico]

I’m not saying that Christ is flawed. I’m saying that Christ took was is defective and perfected it as soon as he put it on (humanity). Does that make sense? I’m looking this at the perspective of the teaching that a sinful priest can still make Sacraments because God, who works through the priest, cannot be defiled by the priest’s sins. Thus if Christ were to take on flesh that is not perfect, the moment it is incorporated into His being it is instantly perfected. Is this thought completely incompatible with what you have said?

I’m assuming that “flesh” means human nature in your statement, and that imperfect flesh means flawed human nature. It is not possible to take on a flawed human nature and not be fallen, by definition. Adam and Eve were created in the image and likeness of God, this likeness was not fallen until they sinned. Similarly Christ has the unfallen human nature.

1 Peter 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Hebrews 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

CCC 467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”. He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.91 We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.92

 

[centurionguard]

From the 1854 Ineffabilis Deus, gives the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, that the Theotokos is such before all ages*:*

“From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world.”

“And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent.”

… “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed”[13] – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.[14]

1. Gn 3:15.
2. Quo circa sicut Christus Dei hominumque mediator, humana assumpta natura, delens quod adversus nos erat chirographum decretia, illud cruci triumphator affixit; sic Sanctissima Virgo, Arctissimo et indissolubili vinculo cum eo conjuncta, una cum illo et per illum, sempiternas contra venenosum serpentem inimicitias exercens, ac de ipso plenissime triumphans, illus caput immaculato pede contrivit.

Beautifully said. :thumbsup:Father. :thumbsup:Son :thumbsup:and Holy Spirit.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2011/fsheen_visitationwfl_may2011.asp

ia600300.us.archive.org/24/items/TheWorldsFirstLove/sheenTheWorldsFirstLoveedited.pdf

 

[centurionguard]

This special purity of hers we call the Immaculate
Conception. It is not the Virgin Birth. The word “immaculate” is
taken from two latin words meaning “not stained.” “Con-
ception” means that at the first moment of her conception,
the Blessed Mother in the womb of her mother, St. Anne,
and in virtue of the anticipated merits of the Redemption of
her Son, was preserved free from the stains of original sin.

I never could see why anyone in this day and age should
object to the Immaculate Conception; all modem pagans
believe that they are immaculately conceived. If there is no
original sin, then everyone is immaculately conceived. Why
do they shrink from allowing to Mary what they attribute
to themselves? The doctrine of Original Sin and the Im-
maculate Conception are mutually exclusive. If Mary alone
is THE Immaculate Conception, then the rest of us must have
Original Sin.

The Immaculate Conception does not imply that Mary
needed no Redemption. She needed it as much as you and I
do. She was redeemed in advance, by way of prevention, in
both body and soul, in the first instant of conception. We re-
ceive the fruits of redemption in our soul at Baptism. The
whole human race needs redemption. But Mary was desolid-
arized and separated from that sin-laden humanity as a result
of the merits of Our Lord’s Cross being offered to her at the
moment of her conception. If we exempted her from the need
of redemption, we would also have to exempt her from mem-
bership in humanity. The Immaculate Conception, therefore.
in no way implies tiiat she needed no redemption. She did!
Mary is the first effect of redemption, in the sense that it was
applied to her at the moment of her conception and to us
in another and diminished fashion only after our birth.

She had this privilege, not for her sake, but for HIS sake.
That is why those who do not believe in the Divinity of
Christ can see no reason for the special privilege accorded
to Mary. If I did not believe in the Divinity of Our Lord –
which God avert – 1 should see nothing but nonsense in any
special reverence given to Mary above the other women on
earth! But if she is the Mother of God, Who became Man,
then she is unique, and then she stands out as the new Eve
of Humanity as He is the new Adam.

There had to be some such creature as Mary – otherwise
God would have found no one in whom He could fittingly
have taken His human origin. An honest politician seeking
civic reforms looks about for honest assistants. The Son of
God beginning a new creation searched for some of that
Goodness which existed before sin took over. There would
have been, in some minds, a doubt about the Power of God
if He had not shown a special favor to the Woman who was
to be His Mother. Certainly what God gave to Eve, He would
not refuse to His Own Mother.

Suppose that God in making over man did not also make
over woman into a new Eve! What a howl of protest would
have gone up! Christianity would have been denounced as
are all male religions. Women would then have searched for
a female religion! It would have been argued that woman was
always the slave of man and even God intended her to be
such, since He refused to make the new Eve, as He made the
new Adam.

Had there been no Immaculate Conception, then Christ
would have been said to be less beautiful, for He would
have taken His Body from one who was not humanly per-
fect! There ought to be an infinite separation between God
and sin, but there would not have been if there was not one

If you were an artist would you allow someone to pre-
pare your canvas with daubs? Then why should God be
expected to act differently, when He prepares to unite to
Himself a human nature like ours, in all things, save sin?
But having lifted up one woman by preserving her from
sin, and then having her freely ratify that gift at the Annuncia-
tion, God gave hope to our disturbed, neurotic, gauche, and
weak humanity. Oh, yes! He is our Model, but He is also the
Person of God! There ought to be, on the human level. Some-
one who would give humans hope. Someone who could lead
us to Christ, Someone who would mediate between us and
Christ as He mediates between us and the Father. One look
at her, and we know that a human who is not good can be-
come better; one prayer to her, and we know that, because
she is without sin, we can become less sinful.

And that brings us back to the beginning. We have said
that everyone carries within his heart a blueprint of his
ideal love. The best of human loves, no matter how de-
voted they be, must end and there is nothing perfect that
ends. If there be anyone of whom it is possible to say, “This
is the last embrace,” then there is no perfect love. Hence
some, ignoring the Divine, may try to have a multiplicity
of loves make up for the ideal love; but this is like saying
that to render a musical masterpiece one must play a dozen
different violins.

continued…

 

[centurionguard]

continued…

Every man who pursues a maid, every maid who yearns to
be courted, every bond of friendship in the universe, seeks
a love that is not just her love or his love but something
that overflows both her and him which is called “our love.”
Everyone is in love with an ideal love, a love that is so far
beyond sex that sex is forgotten. We all love something more
than we love. When that overflow ceases, love stops. As the
poet puts it: “I could not love thee, dear, so much, loved I
not honour more.” That ideal love we see beyond all creature-
love, to which we instinctively turn when flesh-love fails, is
the same ideal that God had in His Heart from all eternity

the Lady whom He calls “Mother.” She is the one whom every
man loves when he loves a woman whether he knows it or
not. She is what every woman wants to be, when she looks at
herself. She is the woman whom every man marries in ideal
when he takes a spouse; she is hidden as an ideal in the dis-
content of every woman with the carnal aggressiveness of
man; she is the secret desire every woman has to be honored
and fostered; she is the way every woman wants to command
respect and love because of the beauty of her goodness of
body and soul. And this blueprint love, whom God loved be-
fore the world was made; this Dream Woman before women
were, is the one of whom every heart can say in its depth of
depths: “She is the Woman I love!”
Archbishop Fulton J Sheen

 

[GaryTaylor]

The issue’s arrise when you begin to place your human situation in Marys situation. And substitude the Creator with the Creature’s thinking.

The question really is, if the Angel Gabriel can appear to St Mary, and the Holy Spirit can overcome Her, She then bears Christ by Divine Providence of God through Her fiat and history. Well, why is it God can’t only keep St Mary sinless, but She also remained a Virgin “after” birth. I say God not can do just as He so believes ought to be done, but did.

He created you from Dust, Dirt. I’d say He does pretty impressive work.

Why can God do 50% and not 100%? Why would He do that? Through out the NT you see Christ raising the Dead, healing. prophecy etc. But He couldn’t and wouldn’t do this with Mary? Whys that, after through time He chose Mary? From Genesis to Luke through this entire period He choose One Woman. And that Woman was Mary. I would say He thought much of Mary.

God could raise water from a Rock, send plagues to Egypt at will, split the Sea, walk Daniel out of the Lions Den, Noah through of flood which left a single digit number alive. I’d say He can do “anything” He so desire’s.

Thus when you can’t wrap your mind around “infinite”, its because your just begining to see.

All Grace flows from God through Mary today, because God choose for Himself that all Grace flow through Mary from the start. Marys womb was Gods Ark and is Gods Ark. Marys womb as the Church is your Ark, the Gate which you pass through.

Check this out, when you enter the Church to receive Christ in the body, you are in Marys womb.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary doesn’t mean Mary was Immaculate at Gods conception, it means Mary was Immaculate at Her Conception. Preserved from all Stain.

Its a foregone conclusion Mary had no sin at Christs birth.

The Trinity can do as He so wills, when He wills, and in fact has, not once but time after time after time.

So how can He do ALL THAT, but you find it fitting Mary isn’t Full of Grace, Blessed by all Nations for all time? So you disagree with God basically?

Peace

 

[LayingHands]

Why must Mary be without sin?
I’ve seen arguments that have to do with Christ cannot be in same body as sin or something like that. But we have the full divinity in us every Sunday so I don’t see need for her sinlessness.

Mary was chosen by GOD because she was pure of heart and loved GOD with all her heart, soul, and mind…she was devoted and lived by GOD’s rules and the laws. She was all goodness, charity, purity and pious. Her mother, Anne, was a deeply devoted woman to GOD also, and she raised Mary. This probably went back for more generations than we could ever imagine…the line was probably devoted to GOD for hundreds of years.

GOD chose Mary, to be the Mother of His only begotten SON.

 

[centurionguard]

The issue’s arrise when you begin to place your human situation in Marys situation. And substitude the Creator with the Creature’s thinking.

The question really is, if the Angel Gabriel can appear to St Mary, and the Holy Spirit can overcome Her, She then bears Christ by Divine Providence of God through Her fiat and history. Well, why is it God can’t only keep St Mary sinless, but She also remained a Virgin “after” birth. I say God not can do just as He so believes ought to be done, but did.

He created you from Dust, Dirt. I’d say He does pretty impressive work.

Why can God do 50% and not 100%? Why would He do that? Through out the NT you see Christ raising the Dead, healing. prophecy etc. But He couldn’t and wouldn’t do this with Mary? Whys that, after through time He chose Mary? From Genesis to Luke through this entire period He choose One Woman. And that Woman was Mary. I would say He thought much of Mary.

God could raise water from a Rock, send plagues to Egypt at will, split the Sea, walk Daniel out of the Lions Den, Noah through of flood which left a single digit number alive. I’d say He can do “anything” He so desire’s.

Thus when you can’t wrap your mind around “infinite”, its because your just begining to see.

All Grace flows from God through Mary today, because God choose for Himself that all Grace flow through Mary from the start. Marys womb was Gods Ark and is Gods Ark. Marys womb as the Church is your Ark, the Gate which you pass through.

Check this out, when you enter the Church to receive Christ in the body, you are in Marys womb.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary doesn’t mean Mary was Immaculate at Gods conception, it means Mary was Immaculate at Her Conception. Preserved from all Stain.

Its a foregone conclusion Mary had no sin at Christs birth.

The Trinity can do as He so wills, when He wills, and in fact has, not once but time after time after time.

So how can He do ALL THAT, but you find it fitting Mary isn’t Full of Grace, Blessed by all Nations for all time? So you disagree with God basically?

Peace

The Immaculate Conception of Mary doesn’t mean Mary was Immaculate at Gods conception, it means Mary was Immaculate at Her Conception. Preserved from all Stain.

Indeed; she had to be. Only a Holy Vessel created perfect by God (Mary) could contain Jesus; The Son of Almighty God in her virginal womb Preserved from all Stain. Her whole being in soul and body was perfect in every way. Nothing imperfect could contain the unfathomable perfection of God.

As Saint John of the Cross goes on to say in one of his poetry stanzas; Of all people who think about heaven being anywhere else they usually point to the sky. When the Infant Jesus was swaddled on His mother’s lap, she now looked down at heaven.

 

[Elijahmaria]

I’m not saying that Christ is flawed. I’m saying that Christ took was is defective and perfected it as soon as he put it on (humanity). Does that make sense? I’m looking this at the perspective of the teaching that a sinful priest can still make Sacraments because God, who works through the priest, cannot be defiled by the priest’s sins. Thus if Christ were to take on flesh that is not perfect, the moment it is incorporated into His being it is instantly perfected. Is this thought completely incompatible with what you have said?

Seems to me that the teaching of the Incarnation would indicate that Christ takes on fallen human nature. Now what does it then mean to “perfect” it.

He’s clearly in a body that can die…unless you want to posit that he “perfects” his flesh at the moment of his conception so that it cannot die…and THEN…de-perfects it while on the Cross so it can die…?

How do you explain that he ages…

Or that he grows in knowledge and wisdom?